Ahhhh the creationism and evolution dispute! This issue has recently been taken to a deeper level with the awaited public release of the Turkana Boy, the most complete prehistoric human skeleton found to date. The Turkana Boy skeleton is currently stored at Kenya's national museum, where it will be exhibited to the public later in the year. For one side it is a growing factor in the belief of evolution, while it's become a thorn in the side of those who support creationism.
One Bishop Boniface Adoyo, the head of Kenya's evangelical denominations, has been fighting against attention scientist have been drawing to the prehistoric find and wants the museum to shove its display into a back room along with offering an informative explanation to the public, stating that evolution is not a fact, merely a theory. To the Bishop the idea of evolution and desending from the prehistoric is simply a "silly" veiw that kills faith. On the other side of the issue Richard Leakey, a member of the team who found the skeleton in northern Kenya, takes the stance of whether creationist like it or not, they are produced through evolution.
The Turkana Boy will be amoung 160,000 other fossils to be displayed, such as historic lizard imprints (200 million years old, about the time Pangea started breaking apart), dinosaur fossils (7 million years old), and sights like short necked giraffes and elephants with tusks in the lower jaw (instead of the upper jaw as those today have). All of these fossils can be seen as support to the evolution theory, especially the well preserved Turkana Boy. Surprisingly, at least to me, Bishop Adoyo's evangelical coalition are the only creation believers showing a lot of concern over the exhibit dated to launch in July. But due to the controversy security will be tight, especially with the Turkana Boy exhibit.
Reading this article reminded me just how controversial evolution is. Not being raised on either end of the two extremes on the issue, it baffles me at times that people can be stubborn to different views. There are many things in science that disprove the Bible, the "word of God" that was written by humans, but there are also aspects of life that science can not touch. Matthew McConaughey's character in the movie Contact touches that subject very well when he asks Jodie Foster's character, an astronomer, if she loved her father. When she answers that she did very much he tells her to prove it. As far as I know, there is no scientific way to prove your love for someone.
Maybe I'm more of a minority with my view point of evolution vs. creationism compared to the religious and scientific world. Bishop Adoyo did get one thing correct, in my opinion, when he stated that evolution is a theory. Science is based around theories and hypothesis. Religion, however, is also just one of the many theories out there pertaining to our existance. Dinosaur bones and prehistoric findings disprove many claims in the Bible, especially that of timeline. But something to consider is that the Bible was written by humans. The word of God has been portrayed by humans into the great epic story of the Bible. Isn't it also one of the many theories that when man wrote the Bible that he did so in a more artistic fable type sense? While scientists will sometimes totally turn their back on the idea of a higher power, creationists are totally turning their back on the basic fact that the Bible was written by man, and where it holds the teachings of God, claiming it is the "word of God" is in itself a fallacy. Having only scientific or only religious views separates humanity. And, sadly, until people realize that they truly can work together it seems that the separation will continue.
I think the best way I've heard the concept of evolution vs creationism described was by my high school biology teacher before we started learning our evolution section of the class. Growing up in a Christian majority (Provo, UT) area he had been getting a lot of parents and students upset at the fact he would be teaching evolution. He simply stated, "Evolution is not a question of whom. It is merely a questioning of how."
Article source:
CNN "Ancient boy's skeleton sparks evolution debate". POSTED: 4:29 p.m. EST, February 6, 2007 at: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/06/kenya.fossildebate.ap/index.html
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Your article reminds me of a show I recently caught on the National Geographic channel trying to prove whether aliens existed or not through a bizarre skull, now known as Starboy. I believe that's the name. What do you think of that? The skull is similar-structured like a humans, but there's no jaw, the skull size (where you would find the brain) is twice the size of an average humans and looks just like how aliens are pictured, and the sockets for the eyes are very unlikely for human eyes in that they're wider. The skull even proves old itself. Now scientists (or maybe just those who's proving aliens true) are questioning whether aliens created humans. They're relating the question to the ancient carvings on walls that looks like humans are creating humans.
After watching the complete show, I thought the skull could belong to any human just like us.
I've actually never heard of Starboy. I'm going to have to look this guy up! There have been many archeological findings relating to extraterrestrials. I remember watching a special on tv when th Sphinx in Egypt was opened and there were hyrogliphics that depicted UFO's and images resembling Apache Helicopters.
Like I said in my original post: There are many many theories! For all we know reality is actually a mix of opposing theories. But until we learn the humility to look beyond what we are comfortable with we'll continue fighting and not getting anywhere as a whole.
Thanks for telling me about this Starboy, I'm going to go look it up :)
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world" -Ghandhi
I've actually never heard of Starboy. I'm going to have to look this guy up! There have been many archeological findings relating to extraterrestrials. I remember watching a special on tv when th Sphinx in Egypt was opened and there were hyrogliphics that depicted UFO's and images resembling Apache Helicopters.
Like I said in my original post: There are many many theories! For all we know reality is actually a mix of opposing theories. But until we learn the humility to look beyond what we are comfortable with we'll continue fighting and not getting anywhere as a whole.
Thanks for telling me about this Starboy, I'm going to go look it up :)
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world" -Ghandhi
I think I found what you are talking about. What you really mean is "Starchild". It is a 900 year old skull that looks like a pretty typical hydrocephalic child to me.
The owner of the skull, someone named Lewis Pye, is pushing hard for it to be an alien/human hybrid skull. But even the evidence he cites in favor of it being a human skull.
He says that mitochondrial DNA has been isolated and found to be human. That means that the mother is human. But he says that no nuclear DNA has been found and he suggests that the nuclear DNA therefore must be alien.
Mitochondria are intracellular organelles that have their own DNA. A sperm cell does not contribute any mitochondria to the egg when it fertilizes it so it is true that all mitochondria come from the mother.
Nuclear DNA is the 23 pairs of chromosomes that we code for almost all the traits that make us what we are. We get one set from our mothers and another set from our fathers.
Since the mitochondrial DNA was human we know the kid had a human mother. Even if he had an alien father he should still have had a human mother and if we could find any nuclear DNA we should be able to find hers. The fact that we cannot find any nuclear DNA then does not argue for extraterrestrial DNA.
In fact, it is not particularly surprising that we cannot find nuclear DNA. Each cell contains a single nucleus. They may contain thousands of mitochondria. Thus, mitochondrial DNA is always easier to find.
Pye also says that the skull is 50% thinner than a normal human skull. It contains more collagen than a normal skull. And it is 50% stronger than a normal skull. But a hydrocephalic child will have a thinner skull than normal. The skull of children do contain more collagen. If the skull was buried in the ground then it is likely that the skull would have undergone some mineralization. This would make the skull stronger than normal.
On a theoretical basis, presumably any extraterrestrial would have arisen by a process of evolution completely independent of ours. Therefore, we would be more closely related to a grape than to the extraterrestrial. Why then would we be more likely to hybridize with the extraterrestrial than with the grape?
So what is more likely? A hydrocephalic child or the offspring of a space alien and human mother? I go with hydrocephaly any day.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
Wow. That was a lot of information. Thanks though. When I was watching the show, I didn't get to finish it so I didn't hear any of those statements.
Your welcome. :=)
Darwin's Beagle
If you haven't heard this you should. An old saying that is repeatedly true through the scientific world is that "The further into a physics or biology department you go, the more Christians you find."
It is very true. Because once in their life they asked themselves how everthing was created. Nothing can be self-created, so there must be a being that is self-exsistent.
You may want to believe in evolution or the big bang theroy all you want, but you cannot deny that there is some kind of diety out there. Scientists have grappled with this idea and came up with intelligent design. Though not entirely christian, it is really close. Also there is an ever occuring problem with evolution, DNA differences. In order for us to have evovled, with must have a certain percent of DNA similar to ancestors. Scientists have never found this. Thus strengthing creationism.
____________________________________________________________
God gave you a brain. America gave you a vote. Use them together and wisely.
Both orangutans and chimpanzees are within a 3% DNA deviation from humans(via my Biology textbook). Check out some of evolutiongeek's posts for better back up than I could ever give.
There are also plenty of physicists and biologist in the top of their field that aren't Christian, in fact many are pantheists because it doesn't involve all the contradictions of an omnimax God. It is largely Christians grasping at an ever shriveling "God of the gaps" that say things like, "The farther you go into physics and biology the more Christians you find."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
The study isn't limited to physicists and biologists, but the numbers say that most scientists are atheists or agnostics.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
If you are not a theologian, you cannot fully understand the meanings behind an omnipotent God. It is a deep debate that I do not want to get into right now. All I can say is that God is omnipotent, but not in the sense that many people want to think about omnipotentence is.
____________________________________________________________
God gave you a brain. America gave you a vote. Use them together and wisely.
But in the real world this isn't so.
In the general population of the US somewhere between 85 to 95% claim to be Christians.
According to a survey of PhD's published in NATURE that figure drops to 40% with Mathematics and the Social Sciences having the highest percentage and BIOLOGISTS the lowest.
When you get up to members of the National Academy of Sciences (the upper level and most accomplished scientists) the figure totally reverses. Only 7% claim to be theists.
Virtual particles are self-created. There is experimental support for such a thing. See my write up on the Casimir Effect in this blog:
http://www.progressiveu.org/165114-so-tell-me-my-friend-how-did-the-universe-begin
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It possibly could have been but Dembski, Behe, et al. have asserted that the numerous examples of non-intelligent design seen in nature is not evidence against it because the Designer COULD have wanted it that way. Dembski also claims that ID is not meant to be mechanistic. By this he means that ID doesn't need to explain how things came about. This makes ID (1) non-falsifiable & (2) non-explanatory. That rules it out as a scientific theory.
There is plenty of DNA evidence that pretty much conclusively shows common descent ... the idea that present day organisms shared common ancestors. See my write up documenting some of the more impressive DNA evidence showing our common ancestry with chimpanzees.
http://www.progressiveu.org/190000-modern-evolutionary-theory-versus-intelligent-design-part-2
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
In any way shape of form, you cannot create yourself. Neither can anything in the universe. If you exsist then something had to exsist before you to make you into exsistence. You cannot create yourself. Nothing can. So thefore there must be a self-exsistent being. A being that has neither a beginning or an end. A being that is continous.
God is not a God of gaps. He has a plan, and he will fulfill it in any way possible. If you try and say "Can God make a rock so big he cannnot move it?" you cannot argue this. God is a God of logic. Not silly little questions like that. Logic will always prevail. And so will God.
Evolution is silly at its basic level. Why can scientist not find the "missing link" they are always looking for. And when they find one, they need another one, and another one, an so on and so forth.
Last, your sources are laughable. All they are are a bunch of pictures that could be construde in any way. I could make those look like my DNA. And your first source is a blog YOU wrote. No source is sighted anywhere in it.
This source is about all you need to prove creationism:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/#2
And it is not a blog or picture. It had detailed explanations in it.
____________________________________________________________
God gave you a brain. America gave you a vote. Use them together and wisely.
Stinko==
[Nothing can create itself] ... In any way shape of form, you cannot create yourself. Neither can anything in the universe. If you exsist then something had to exsist before you to make you into exsistence. You cannot create yourself. Nothing can. So thefore there must be a self-exsistent being. A being that has neither a beginning or an end. A being that is continous.
DB=
(1) There are many naturalistic speculations on how the universe (defined as all there is and ever was) could have been eternal. I discussed some of those in the same blog that I linked you to for a discussion of the Casimir effect. The link is just right there up above.
(2) Virtual particles ARE produced all the time. Furthermore, they are no cause even in principle can be assigned to them. They are quantum events which coincidentally enough ... so was the Big Bang. Thus, there is no reason to think that the Big Bang needed someone to start it.
(3) Another way to come to the same conclusion as (2) is to realize that if the universe is not eternal and there truly was nothing before the Big Bang then time itself started with the Big Bang. When we look at causes in the real universe of an event that takes place at a discreet point in space we can only say that whatever caused it must be in the backwards light cone of the event. What do I mean by backward light cone?
Start with the discreet point in space at the instant the event takes place. Whatever was the causative agent of that event must also be there at that time. Now pretend that you can go backwards in time just a miniscule fraction of a second. Then at that time whatever caused the event must be within a sphere that has a radius of c (the speed of light) times that fraction of a second. As you go further and further back in time then that sphere gets bigger and bigger. That sphere that changes with time is referred to as a light cone. Since we are running it backwards in time is called a backwards light cone.
Thus, whatever causes an event must be somewhere in the backward light cone of the event. BUT if the as stated above; the universe and time itself actually did begin at the instant of the Big Bang then there could not possibly have been a backward light cone since there was no time for us to go backwards in. Thus, it makes absolutely no sense to even discuss the cause of the universe in such a scenario.
Stinko==
God is not a God of gaps. He has a plan, and he will fulfill it in any way possible. If you try and say "Can God make a rock so big he cannnot move it?" you cannot argue this. God is a God of logic. Not silly little questions like that. Logic will always prevail. And so will God.
DB=
(1) No one made such a silly argument as rock so big that God cannot move it.
(2) If you like logical arguments against your God then try this one on for size;
If you are as most people who believe such demonstrably wrong things to support their belief in God then you thing God is omnimax. By that you think God is omnipotent (able to do anything that can logically be done); God is omniscient (knows everything that can logically be known); and God is omnibenevolent (wants what is best for ever member of his creation).
Premise 1 -- If God is omniscient then he should know that unnecessary suffering (suffer that either leads to no higher good, or suffering beyond the minimal amount needed to acheive a higher good) exist.
Premise 2 -- If God is omnipotent then he should have the power to prevent unnecessary suffering.
Premise 3 -- If God is omnibenevolent then he should want to prevent unnecessary suffering.
Observation -- Unnecessary suffering exists.
Conclusion -- God is not omnimax. Therefore God must be at least a little bit ignorant (He doesn't know about all the unnecessary suffering); a little bit weak (He can't prevent it); and/or a little bit mean (He doesn't want to prevent it). So tell me what is it?
Stinko==
Evolution is silly at its basic level. Why can scientist not find the "missing link" they are always looking for. And when they find one, they need another one, and another one, an so on and so forth.
DB=
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that you cannot follow directions to links. So let me put it right here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2_big.jpg
The picture in the upper left labelled "A" is a modern chimpanzee. The picture in the lower right labelled "N" is a modern human. The skulls in between labelled "B" through "M" are arranged in chronological order of their radionuclide datings.
Where do the apes start? Where do humans begin? What more "missing links" do you need? What criteria did you use to come up with your answer? If you cannot come up with an answer then why should we put any credence in your baseless assertion concerning missing links?
Stinko==
Last, your sources are laughable. All they are are a bunch of pictures that could be construde in any way. I could make those look like my DNA. And your first source is a blog YOU wrote. No source is sighted anywhere in it.
DB=
Glad I could give you a laugh. But you do realize that YOUR DNA ("chromosomes" is the more accurate term) DOES LOOK LIKE THAT. Yes, I wrote the blogs. I gave you enough detail so that if you actually doubted what is in there then you could actually get off your lazy ass and look it up. But you haven't done that, have you?
Stinko==
This source is about all you need to prove creationism:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/#2
And it is not a blog or picture. It had detailed explanations in it.
DB=
Perhaps you could read it again and summarize for us exactly HOW this is supposed to PROVE creationism. Especially since in its own CONCLUSION it says this:
"Scientifically Creationism is worthless, philosophically it is confused, and theologically it is blinkered beyond repair."
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
Where you heard that God said it was going to be easy, said wrongly. God never said the path to righteousness is not easy. You must take up the cross and bear it with Jesus. We must model Christ in all he did. If you know the slighest bit of scripture, Jesus was always in hardships from somewhere.
Also, you have to ask yourself, why has christainity survived even the most liberal of states? Because people come to a relization that there is something out there that is working. You don't know what it is but there is something. Why do people go to foreign countries and live their lives out there, and not the comfort of home? There is a larger motivation, one that no one can explain.
God also gave you a choice. And you have to do to escape hell is say that you "believe in God and Jesus, and the sacrafice that he made" believe this in your heart then you will be saved, fairly simple. But you must truly believe, not be a scientific test.
Lastly, I find some of your language to be qutie offensive. Only when you have nothing better to say, do you use loud words and insults.
"I gave you enough detail so that if you actually doubted what is in there then you could actually get off your lazy ass and look it up. But you haven't done that, have you?"
Get some class and then talk.
____________________________________________________________
God gave you a brain. America gave you a vote. Use them together and wisely.
"Also, you have to ask yourself, why has christainity survived even the most liberal of states?"
Because the majority in America are and always have been Christian. Christmas is a national holiday now. We are largely a secular nation... the majority of Christians are not 'active' Christians (in my first high school, I'd venture to say a large majority were Christians, and I can only name a handful that actually went to church every week), and many don't bother to challenge what they have been taught. I know I would never have if I hadn't met someone who forced me to. There are also those who will cling to their beliefs no matter what, and America protects them. That's how Christianity has survived.
"And you have to do to escape hell is say that you "believe in God and Jesus, and the sacrafice that he made" believe this in your heart then you will be saved, fairly simple."
What about people who have never heard of Christianity? What about good people, who believe in God, but not necessarily believe in Jesus? They know they sin, and they speak to God directly asking for forgiveness. Are they not as good as the 'good' Christian?
~C
Visit my blog.
Dear Stinko,
I do not tolerate willful ignorance gladly. Here is the evidence that you have been willfully ignorant.
(1) You made several claims in your initial post. One was that the more one learns about physics and biology the more likely one is to be a Christian. That claim was challenged by both Dr. Gonzo and I with evidence to the contrary. You have not even attempted in any of your responses to address that evidence.
(2) You implied that everything that comes into existence must have a cause. I challenged you on that claim and gave you evidence to the contrary. You denied my evidence without attempting to give any counter evidence.
(3) You implied that intelligent design was a scientific theory. I refuted that with evidence. You have not attempted to address that evidence.
(4) You claimed that DNA evidence contradicts evolutionary theory and strengthens creationism. I argued the opposite with evidence. You dismissed that evidence without any evidence to the contrary.
(5) You claimed the the website: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/#2 proves creationism. However it is obvious that you did not even read the website since it is a strongly anti-creationist website.
(6) Your response above is a 3 paragraph witnessing of your Christian faith that is (a) rudely inappropriate for this thread on science and creationism, and (b) denies your own initial premise that science supports faith.
For only having 3 pertinent posts in this sub-thread that is strong evidence for willful ignorance. Ignorance means there is something you don't know about something that is known. It is curable. All it requires is a honest effort on your part. Willful ignorance is a refusal to put forth that effort. This thread seems to be important enough to you to compose several responses. If it is that important then you should GET UP OFF YOUR LAZY ASS AND PUT FORTH THE EFFORT TO ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING.
No one is asking you to automatically believe what is told to you. All you are being asked to do is support your views with reason.
Have a great day,
Darwin's Beagle
"GET UP OFF YOUR LAZY ASS AND PUT FORTH THE EFFORT TO ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING."
Take your own advice and learn something about Christianity, and what a true follower of Christ looks like.
Try:
www.planetwisdom.com
____________________________________________________________
God gave you a brain. America gave you a vote. Use them together and wisely.
DB doesn't typically attack Christians directly (he attacks people that are Christians, as a consequence of them arguing with him), but attacks the foundations of their beliefs. Or some variation thereof (he did a blog a while back on morality and how it's not related to religion). He's quite knowledgeable about it, something that I've yet to see from you. He's told you exactly what he's looking for, and you still don't take his advice and go and do a little research, but continue to spout about Christianity.
Needless to say, I think this is going to be an interesting semester when it comes to religion, especially with so many vocal Christians joining the contest.
Oh, and do follow the advice in my signature... I've written a number of blogs about Christianity myself :).
~C
Visit my blog.
This particular blog is not yours nor is it mine. I apologize to Luthien for the apparent hijacking of it. It was not my intention to do so. I have been trying my best to keep on topic, however you seem to be wanting to make it into your personal Christian witnessing session.
If you want to start a thread about biblical knowledge I will be more than happy to participate. Perhaps then we will see if your knowledge on the subject is as vast as you imply it is. I have gotten up off my lazy ass and have learned quite a bit about Christianity. I have read the bible ... Hebrew bible (aka Old Testament), New Testament, Apocrypha, and most of the early religious texts that didn't make it into the canon ... that still survive. I have carefully examined a number of claimed prophecy fulfillments. I have read apologetics from a number of evangelical sources including William Lane Craig, Josh McDowell, and JP Holdiing. I have read some of the more scholarly works from religious "thinkers" like Alvin Plantinga. I'm incredibly unimpressed.
I have actually been doing some bible study blogs on the bible from a skeptical perspective. If you do not want to go to the trouble of posting your own blog, I'm sure you will find enough objectionable material there that you could comment on. They should be easily found. But since both you and I are visiting on another's topic, let's try and stay on topic here ... out of common courtesy.
Have a good day,
Darwin's Beagle
First, a question, is an omnipotent being any less omnipotent if his plan takes a few billion years to bear fruit than if it magically pops up in 6 days? And, if God's plan includes putting people on earth to live an often miserable life so they can choose God and to go to Heaven rather than just creating a Heaven and creating everyone already there, why is it so unfathomable that other parts of his plan also take time to come to fruition? I mean seriously, if he didn't really want to see how things worked out, he would have just created Heaven and put us all there with no worries or problems. But he didn't, so what makes you so sure that he just *poofed* everything else into existence exactly as it is with no way to evolve and adapt and grow? Ok, enough rambling, on to my main point.
About 400 years ago a similar argument was taking place, except much more heated and with much greater consequences. The argument was about the actual movement of the solar system, whether it was geocentric as the Church said or Heliocentric as Copernicus and Galileo said. Turns out the Church was wrong then, and it's only a matter of time before Creationism falls the same way Geocentrism did.
However, Galileo and Copernicus were BOTH very religious men, and both warned greatly against the exact mentality you are now displaying. If God created the universe, then God created everything on the Earth. If the things on the earth evolved into what they are today, would it not still be part of God's plan?
What Galileo said is that the Bible was written to be a teacher, however it was NOT a science teacher or a physics teacher or an anthropology teacher, it is meant to be a MORAL teacher (though I personally think that the passage where Moses kills everyone in the conquered town other than the virgin girls, who are taken as slaves, doesn't seem very moral, and there are plenty of other Old Testament passages that are equally disturbing to question even the moral validity of the book). He said that there are almost ZERO mentions about the planets in the bible, is that to be taken as proof that the planets don't exist? No, they existed when the Bible was written, they just weren't known about. Physics wasn't known about. Evolution wasn't known about. They have always existed, they will always exist. If you believe that the universe is the creation of an omnipotent being, then physics and evolution are part of his creation. God CREATED Evolution.
The exact words of Galileo:
"With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from true might thus be made to appear in the Bible, but even grave heresies and follies. Thus it would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands and eyes, as well as corporeal and human affections, such as anger, repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the forgetting of things past and ignorance of those to come. These propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in that manner by the sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the capacities, Of the common people, who are rude and unlearned. For the sake of those who deserve to be separated from the herd, it is necessary that wise expositors should produce the true senses of such passages, together with the special reasons for which they were set down in these words. This doctrine is so widespread and so definite with all theologians that it would be superfluous to adduce evidence for it.
Hence I think that I may reasonably conclude that whenever the Bible has occasion to speak of any physical conclusion (especially those which are very abstruse and hard to understand), the rule has been observed of avoiding confusion in the minds of the common people which would render them contumacious toward the higher mysteries. Now the Bible, merely to condescend to popular capacity, has not hesitated to obscure some very important pronouncements, attributing to God himself some qualities extremely remote from (and even contrary to) His essence. Who, then, would positively declare that this principle has been set aside, and the Bible has confined itself rigorously to the bare and restricted sense of its words, when speaking but casually of the earth, of water, of the sun, or of any other created thing? Especially in view of the fact that these things in no way concern the primary purpose of the sacred writings, which is the service of God and the salvation of souls - matters infinitely beyond the comprehension of the common people.
This being granted, I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages but from sense experiences and necessary demonstrations; for the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God's commands. It is necessary for the Bible, in order to be accommodated to the understanding of every man, to speak many things which appear to differ from the absolute truth so far as the bare meaning of the words is concerned. But Nature, on the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are understandable to men. For that reason it appears that nothing physical which senseexperience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words. For the Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature's actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible."
http://www.galilean-library.org/christina.html
I never said that there wasn't a diety or that the big bang theory made perfect sense. I said that there are things in creationism that can't touch certian scientific findings, but also vice versa, there are things that science can't touch within humanity that religion does. There are so many arguments for and against both.
And you missed the point I was trying to make. There are so many different ideas out there pertaining to why we are here and the way we are. It's a pity that people can't stop to take a closer look to ideas outside of their comfort zone and consider that maybe just because there aren't "facts" doesn't disprove anything. There is absolutely no scientific proof that makes God a "fact". But there is also no scientific proof to make your love for someone a "fact". There are no religious "facts" that disprove science either mind you.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world" -Ghandhi
Everytime I see a piece of writing about the Creationism/Religion vs. Evolution/Science, I realize that it's simply a battle that keeps on going with no end!
Of course there are facts supporting both sides. I myself am a Christian, but I am also not close minded. I realize that there are indeed scientific findings that are incredible, but that are also Biblical findings that are also just as incredible. Evolution has scientific facts and bits of evidence on it's side. Creationism and the realm of religion and God have historical facts (and some artifacts) that prove it's validity as well. So who wins? Well, we just may never know. I have made my decision, but that doesn't mean that I can make someone else believe what I believe. Like I said, there are facts on both sides, but it's up to the individual to decide. The one point that was made in this blog was that the Bible was "man made." Yes, the writings and such were written by man. But the Bible is NOT the only written documentation about the event that occured in the Bible. There have been non-Christian writings of such events. Just a thought. The Bible is considered to be the "God inspiried" word of God. I tend to think that we will never be able to fully interpret it's deeper and far more intelligent meanings here on this Earth because there are some things in this world that we were not meant to understand. The world and life we live in would lose it's awe if we did. At least, that's what I believe. I will let you do your own research and make your own decisions.
Just like I said, this is a battle that will always be fought, but no one will ever win. How are we to know how the Earth was created? Do we really know what God meant in the Bible with human terms? Or does science really have the answer? Who knows!
~Jess
Everytime I see a piece of writing about the Creationism/Religion vs. Evolution/Science, I realize that it's simply a battle that keeps on going with no end!
Of course there are facts supporting both sides. I myself am a Christian, but I am also not close minded. I realize that there are indeed scientific findings that are incredible, but that are also Biblical findings that are also just as incredible. Evolution has scientific facts and bits of evidence on it's side. Creationism and the realm of religion and God have historical facts (and some artifacts) that prove it's validity as well. So who wins? Well, we just may never know. I have made my decision, but that doesn't mean that I can make someone else believe what I believe. Like I said, there are facts on both sides, but it's up to the individual to decide. The one point that was made in this blog was that the Bible was "man made." Yes, the writings and such were written by man. But the Bible is NOT the only written documentation about the event that occured in the Bible. There have been non-Christian writings of such events. Just a thought. The Bible is considered to be the "God inspiried" word of God. I tend to think that we will never be able to fully interpret it's deeper and far more intelligent meanings here on this Earth because there are some things in this world that we were not meant to understand. The world and life we live in would lose it's awe if we did. At least, that's what I believe. I will let you do your own research and make your own decisions.
Just like I said, this is a battle that will always be fought, but no one will ever win. How are we to know how the Earth was created? Do we really know what God meant in the Bible with human terms? Or does science really have the answer? Who knows!
~Jess
GRRR! I just spent the last hour writing my response to all of this and it didn't post! Here goes again:
Firstly:
I think people are thinking I'm taking sides here and I'm not. I have absolutely nothing against either theories or science and religion. I don't support one idea over the other because from my point of view they are opposing but similar sides of the same idea. I hope that makes sense, it did in my head lol.
Second:
I think my point fell on deaf ears. I didn't start this blog to have an argument of science vs. religion and have a "fact" war. I think GabbyinsnFilly might have understood where I was trying to go with this. I'll try to clarify again and hopefully I'll either make more sense with my point or at least clear up any misunderstandings about my post.
Ooooook... What I'm trying to say (and it appears I'm failing miserablly at doing so) those who argue evolution over creationism and vice versa are guilty of the same fallacy. It seems to me that extremism hinders growth and learning and this argument is a prime example of the social issues that come from extremism. Creationist seem to feel, on a majority, that if scientific understanding were to be accepted that it "kills faith" and God's words and teachings (see my original post for quote referrence). On the flip side evolutionist seem to have the mind set that accepting the possibility of God makes science faulty because science is based on evidence and there is no physical evidence of God that we know of.
The two groups actually have a very similar problem with their mentality, they both deny the other. I have never experienced anything in life that is strictly black vs white. There are times that something seems totally and utterly wrong or right because of my perception, but later if I take a look at the situation it's a complex mix of grays. The same thing applies to this argument. The two sides are so busy trying to argue the specific idea they don't see all the fallacies they are making.
Take Creationist, or even just religious if that works in your mind also. They will support DNA science if it will help a CSI unit find a criminal. But if it links humans to apes in any way it is "silly" and a harm to "faith".
Evolutionist, or possibly the general scientific public, will treat things they have not yet discovered or figured out with great excitement and curiosity, like prehistoric, supernatural, ect. Except God which is often treated as a foolish creation of the mind.
The reality is that both religion and science is based on faith. Religion has the faith in something bigger than ourselves and purpose in life to be good people. Science has the faith in something bigger than our knowledge and understanding of the universe to help better our society and improve life. As I stated the movie Contact, based on the works of Carl Sagan, does a wonderful job of approaching this point. I mentioned this scene in my original posting:
[Ellie challenges Palmer to prove the existence of God]
Palmer: I couldn't imagine living in a world where God didn't exist. I wouldn't want to.
Ellie: How do you know you're not deluding yourself. I mean, for me... I need proof.
Palmer: Proof. Did you love your father?
Ellie: What?
Palmer: Your dad, did you love him?
Ellie: Yes, very much.
Palmer: Prove it.
Science can't prove love. It can show what part of our brain love uses, but not the feeling's reality itself. Just as it can't prove God exists, it also can't prove that God doesn't exist. Just like religion can't disprove scientific study. The two sides are so busy bickering back and forth that they don't stop to look at the hypocracy, fallacies, and social separation it causes.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world" -Ghandhi
Yeah that's what I got from your blog. But I was also responding to the comments left on your blog. Like how I said that I'm a Christian, but I'm not close minded. I know that science is true and stuff, but just because science works doesn't mean I'm lacking any faith. I think that God gave us knowledge and curiousity for a reason after all. Don't you love it when your stuff doesn't post? I was trying to post my blogs at school and it closed the browser on me. Ooo I was not happy.
~Jess
JESSAMINE Q.
The issue is freewill. God allows suffering (he does not cause suffering, we cause our own suffering by the choices we make and the choices others make) from the ages of Adam and Eve because Satan challenged God's Sovereignty saying that we do not need God in order to successfully rule as humans on earth (This happens in Genesis 3:1-5). The second challenge (which occurs in Job chapter 1) Satan made on our behalf was that humans will only serve God if God gives us stuff. So, basically Satan said don't interfere in human affairs and see that none of them will serve you because You aren't giving them nothing. Basically there is a trial going on right now between Satan and God. (If you guys read Revelation or any part of the bible you could find this out yourself.) We have to prove Satan wrong by serving God despite trials and tribulations we go through. Jesus was the ultimate answer to this challenge because he remained perfect through even death. God has given us a great gift in which to live by, the bible. But many choose to ignore it, proving Satan right. So until this whole thing is over yes people will suffer. But this is because of our own choices to openly reject God and his teachings. But you guys would rather have freewill right, then to have had to submitt to God in the Garden of Eden? Satan is getting his time of freewill, Hitler got his, we all are. But there are consequences to our choices....
God will come one day, "as a theif in the night" and take away all our suffering. He will resurrect those who have died in His name.
I can't give out too much information, but being a scientist in college, I am happy to give hint to this:
Creationism is going to have a bone to pick with evolution.
As soon as I can give details, I will post the heart-trenching article.
But see this article is not to prove whether a deity exist. Scientist have known this for years, in fact they are frustrated because they cannot prove that He DOESN'T exist. Really science and religion do not mix NOT because of the issue of whether or not God exist, but the issue of what way to serve this deity is right. So science has split its way with religion because religion has become a wide spectrum of different ideas on how to go about serving God. So what really needs to be proved is which way is the right way to serve God. Was the bible given to us by God as an answer? Or was the Koran? Or was Buddha? That is the issue. But many scientist have no doubt about the existence of a creator.
Oh man... I type too much
Repeated, extensive failures to falsify a concept lead to a scientific theory. The existence of a deity cannot be proven or disproven. So, whether or not a deity exists is not a scientific question, anymore than the questions concerning the existence of unicorns and trolls are questions.
You have misrepresented the scientific position on religion. And, to be honest, I think we can all do without an article that "trenches our hearts."
............................................
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
-Voltaire
Jessamine Q.
You don't have to be mean about it, gosh.
Anyways...
You'd be surprised how many scientists believe in God because of science itself. Years and years of working in their fields have proven to them that a God exists. But because evolution has become such a big THEORY a lot of scientist BULLY scientist who believe in creation because they know it will ruin the THEORY of evolution. Some scientist have been bullied into complete silence when it comes to their belief or chased out of the field. And when evidence is presented to the scientific world by a scientist who has evidence that EVOLUTION is not really happening, he or she is silenced because evolutionist have this big thing on their shoulders called PRIDE. They've already mislead part of the world, might as well keep doing it.
The whole fossil record thing, yeah a scientist who isn't religious at all and at one point was atheist came out about how the fossil record hasn't even changed. He was giving all this evidence, but the committee he was presenting to would not listen to him. Eventually, in order to save his job he stopped trying to prove the whole thing about the fossil records.
The fact is evolution cannot be proven either because we have not seen any cases of Macroevolution. And those cases of microevolution are just species adapting to their environment. But we have not seen any case of MACROEVOLUTION and never will. Take Darwins finches for example....
Scientist said that the finches with the long bills lived and flourished during the winter and all the short billed finchesd disappeared. But recently in the 1970s scientist found that what was happening is that the longbilled finches yeah lived during the winter, but the shortbilled finches flourished during the summer. Thus meaning there was not giant change that constituted evolution. And those finches are still the same finches that scientist have been seeing since Darwins time, they haven't become rats or had the slightest change.
EVOLUTION IS A THEORY THAT CAN AND HAS BEEN DISPROVEN REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE OF GOD. AND YET MANY STILL CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, SO LET PEOPLE BELIEVE IN GOD.
Why are people so mean to ones they have never met?
I guess it is because we are on a forum and we feel encouraged to say things that we wouldn't normally say in public.
You know, I really want to see you try to disprove the theory of gravity. Because you obviously don't know the scientific meaning of a theory. Theories explain events. Laws tell what the events are. Thus, gravity and evolution will never be laws.
I'm also really interested in seeing what evidence this guy has that the fossil record hasn't changed, and what he means by that. And what this evidence of God is.
And honestly, if you think this is mean, you should probably stay away from ProU. This stuff is tame, and it's simply a discussion about your thoughts. No one here has gotten to the point of personal insults that I'm aware of....
~C
Visit my blog.
You'd be surprised how many scientists believe in God because of science itself.
As a scientist who works with scientists, I probably wouldn't be. I understand that some scientists do have some sort of religious belief. Most of them still think that evolution is a valid theory.
yeah a scientist who isn't religious at all and at one point was atheist came out about how the fossil record hasn't even changed. He was giving all this evidence, but the committee he was presenting to would not listen to him. Eventually, in order to save his job he stopped trying to prove the whole thing about the fossil records.
Could you provide a citation?
The fact is evolution cannot be proven
Of course evolution cannot be proven. That is not how science works. As I mentioned before, a theory is a concept that has repeatedly tried to be falsified. So, if we can't disprove it and it fits the observations, it becomes a theory.
we have not seen any cases of Macroevolution
Actually we obvserve it quite frequently in nature.
Scientist said that the finches with the long bills lived and flourished during the winter and all the short billed finchesd disappeared.
Could you provide a citation for this? I always understood that while that galapagos had a dry and a wet season, it was rather close to the equator and did not vary much from an average of around 70 degrees all year.
THE EVIDENCE OF GOD
I would be especially interested a citation for this.
............................................
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
-Voltaire
Jessamine-
First of all, a scientific theory, unlike the connotation of "theory" that has developed, meaning "hunch" or "speculation," is a fact (observation!!) that has been repeatedly confirmed (i.e., apples fall to the ground).
Second of all, as far as I know, evolutionary theory has not been disproven, unless you can provide evidence of that.
Third of all, of course we've never SEEN macroevolution of complex organisms occuring firsthand-it takes millions of years! Evolution is the process by which the genes that have allowed certain individuals to thrive best in a certain environment are passed on through reproduction into successive generations. And, if these traits continue to benefit these organisms, then they thrive and continue to reproduce, thus increasing its population.
We have--you have-- seen macroevolution occurring. Whenever you take antibiotics against a strain of bacteria, those that aren't wiped out by the bacteria reproduce very rapidly and evolve into another kind of bacteria with different characteristics.
Fourth, I don't really understand what you are saying about the finches. Could you please elaborate, or give a web site that I could look at?
Fifth, science is not based on belief. That is why I said that they are functionally different- science seeks to find explanations (theories) about things that we observe (facts). Religion, however, to ME anyway, is best used to explain things that have no observable causes or explanations otherwise (like miracles, for example)
Sixth, science does not PROVE anything. It does not have the intent to prove anything.
I realize that fully accepting evolutionary theory might force one to question some of the things the bible says, but science (including evolutionary theory) does not make any statement for or against God having to do with getting things started, or even being the brains behind a brilliant process which allows organisms to adapt to their surroundings. For all we know, a higher being DID create the "chemical soup" from which scientists believe the first amino acids and bacteria arose. And, for all we know, a higher being created all of the elements and molecules that are in the universe, and with its divine knowledge and strength, shoved all of these particles into a space the size of a basketball and caused the big bang. Science only tries to give framework for why certain things occur. My point is, perhaps there is some level of coexistence between the two viewpoints, but science does not require coexistence from any other viewpoint.
And I am stepping off of my soapbox. I'm sorry if I offended you in any way, but I can point out at least 5 untrue, or at least unsubstantated statements in your blog... so if you put so much confidence in it, I would try to at least be fairly certain of my validity first.
-Alex Kovash
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. -Albert Einstein
Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander.
-Holocaust Muse
First of all, it is really fascinating reading all of these posts. It's amazing how... committed some are to their beliefs. I admire the idea of believing in something so deeply and fundamentally. However, I don't know if I believe in ignoring scientific evidence (regarding evolutionary theory- going back to the original blog post) to prove your faith.
I agree with you, Luthien, when you say that extremism hinders growth and learning. I try to accept both on some level simultaneously (evolution, which I do whole-heartedly, and to an extent God.)
The thing that bugs me the most is how it feels that incorporating them BOTH causes each one independently to lose its verity, to an extent, i.e. believing in evolutionary theory when the Bible says that God created Adam and Eve, and believing in science, when science is based on directly or indirectly observable phenomena. I guess this is part of the reason why I am so wishy-washy about religion. I think that I should be able to believe in something whole-heartedly. I mean, how can I believe in what the Bible tells me if I see evidence to the contrary? (Keep in mind that I am unsure about religion, so if anyone has a response to my thoughts, please don't be mad! I'm just expressing my doubts.)
It would be much easier if we could figure out the beginning of the universe, eh? Creating something from nothing does seem like something only a miracle could accomplish.
Alex Kovash
(I never knew blogging was so much fun! This is my second blog. See my FIRST blog "not settling for 10 percent")
Jessamine Q.
But if we take this from a bible standpoint, God did not use evoltuion to create species. IT says in the bible, He created them according to their kinds. BUt the bible does not say or cancel the idea that creatures have the ability to adapt to their surroundings. Recently I lived in California where it never snows but now live in New York where it tends to get -26 degrees. But I have adpated to my surroundings. Sometimes I don't even need to where a coat. And when I go home to California to visit family sometimes I think 70 degrees is hot. Does this mean I have evolved into a new creature that can take cold? No it means I have adapted. I believe heavily that God is SMART and gave us the capability to adapt especially in our world where thing have tendency to be a little tricky. And that goes for animals.
Putting on a coat has absolutely zero relation to evolution, even as an analogy. Biological evolution applies to the change of populations over time, not the learned behaviors of individuals. Evolution says that a species slowly changes to better fit the evironment around it inhabits and eventually diverges so far from another population of similar organisms that they can no longer procreate, thus creating a new species. It is impossible for a single organism to biologically evolve, to the best of my knowledge, except in comic books.
As you have so studiously pointed out evolution is a THEORY, as are gravity, relativity and the simple idea that we exist at all. We accept them because every time we observe said theories they seem to operate in the same way. Things may be entirely different when we aren't looking, we have no way of knowing. A scientific theory is not as floppy as asking your buddies about their theories as to who will win the Super Bowl. They are large bodies of evidence that point to a particular conclusion. Should evidence be found that points to another conclusion, that will become the new theory. Witness the move away from Newtonian physics. Of course scientists can become stuck in their ways, just like anybody else, but much less so than religious adherents in general.
In regards to macroevolution, it has been observed. I have a specific paper to cite, but can't find it right now. It is called something like "Observed Instances of Speciation." The only thing we haven't observed is a fish turning into a mammal or similar event. That particular eventuality is probably not observable on a human time scale, but that doesn't make it impossible, far from it.
As Beagle can certainly explain most of the theories presented by Creationists or Intelligent Designers is simply negative evidence against evolution that even its proponents admit isn't evidence against evolution at all.
Evolution may have some holes, but Creationism has nothing but Bible hear say and rabid conjecture. As a theory of anything it completely falls flat.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
My 13 year old son told me something about this show that he caught on the history channel and it totally confused him about evolution and were we all came from. All he got out of the show was that they found a partial skelaton that proves that we all used to be apes. Now I know what he was talking about. I talked to him about it then but didn't know exactly where he got the idea from. He was sure after watching that show though that evolution was the only way it could be. However we came about, this post actually sheds some light on a mystery in my household. :) Thanks from a mom
Jessamine Q.
No, I do not have any citations because I witnessed this stuff happen myself. Some of these people who have been chased by evolutionist bullies are my professors and friends. They have dedicated their lives to research and they are trying to build evidence to disprove evolution. Which is separate from trying to prove God exists, but I figure if they disprove evolution, creationism will have the upper hand once again.
Please use the link that says 'reply' at the bottom of each comment. Otherwise, your replies appear out of order and it's difficult to see what you're actually replying to.
I'm still curious about what evidence they have that disproves evolution, and what prove God exists, whether they're connected or not. You claimed they did. We're just waiting to hear about it.
~C
Visit my blog.
It's totally possible that *IF* this all-omnipowerfullloving whatever, God exists, that he threw a bunch of stuff on the earth that COULD evolve and therefore DID evolve into alot of things we have today.
Maybe he just saved himself alot of work and created some things that would adapt to their environments over time?
That would still leave people evolving from apes and creationism doesn't like that. Humans feel a lot less special if they are just the product of a natural process that will continue after the species dies out, even if it is a divinely created natural process. Evolution turns human beings into the most intelligent, complex species that has come around SO FAR. Religion demands that human beings be the crowning achievement of the universe. After all, if we aren't the chosen race of God, then we are no better than the animals.
I dig the spirit of compromise, but IMHO evolution is compatible with deism, not Christianity or any other religion where God has chosen human kind and placed him above all the other animals.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
Jessamine Q.
I can't say anyhting because the research is not mine to openly talk about until I am given permission (and it is not under copyright, yet). But as soon as they give me the okay, I will surely post a long and engaging article. But like I said, this new research disproves evolution than it does prove there is a God.
I'm waiting.
Jessamine Q.
I meant to say, "this new research disproves evolution MORE than it proves their is a God." The only reason it will really prove their is a God is because evolution will be disproved. Anyways.....
Please read my othe blogs and give your comments and votes...
Thank you